KINETIC WAR: Trump Declares Drug Cartels Are ‘Unlawful Combatants’ and That the US Is in Armed Conflict With Them

Trump posted a video of a burning vessel he said was a US military strike on a Venezuelan drug cartel [Donald Trump/Truth Social via Reuters]

Published October 3, 2025

In early October 2025, the Trump administration escalated its war on narcotics with a sweeping declaration: the United States is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels. A leaked memo, confirmed by several outlets, classifies cartel members as “unlawful combatants”—a label typically reserved for terrorists and insurgents. This move signals a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, blurring the line between organized crime and warfare.

The Memo and Its Meaning

According to Al Jazeera, the memo frames the flow of narcotics into the United States as a form of “armed attack,” justifying the use of military force under the law of armed conflict. Trump officials have already cited the legal opinion to authorize strikes, including attacks on suspected smuggling vessels in the Caribbean.

The Gateway Pundit reports that the administration views the cartels not just as criminal syndicates but as enemy combatants, opening the door to expanded surveillance, targeted strikes, and potentially indefinite detention.

Constitutional & Legal Questions

Critics immediately raised alarms over the constitutional and international law implications.

• War Powers: Congress has not authorized war against cartels, yet the executive branch is acting unilaterally. Legal scholars warn this sidesteps the separation of powers, since only Congress can formally authorize military conflict.

• International Law: Classifying drug cartels as combatants may not meet the legal threshold for armed conflict. Traditionally, organized crime falls under criminal justice, not warfare.

• Due Process: By treating cartel members as combatants, their rights to trial and legal protections could be stripped away, raising concerns over extrajudicial killings and indefinite detention.

Political & Strategic Goals

Trump’s approach appears designed to project toughness against cartels and demonstrate decisive action on border security. By reframing cartel violence as warfare rather than crime, the administration gains flexibility to use the military without being constrained by slower judicial or law enforcement processes.

At the same time, the move carries risks abroad. Unilateral U.S. strikes in Latin America or the Caribbean could strain relations with regional governments, who may view such actions as violations of sovereignty.

Risks and Fallout

AP News highlights that critics in Congress are already pressing for hearings, questioning whether the administration is exceeding its constitutional authority. Human rights advocates warn of “mission creep”—a precedent where any transnational criminal network could be treated as an enemy in war, from traffickers to hackers.

There are also fears of unintended consequences. Cartels, facing open military confrontation, could escalate their violence, target U.S. assets, or destabilize border regions further. Civilian casualties from strikes could undermine the legitimacy of the policy both at home and abroad.

Public / Political Reactions

🏛️ Congressional & Political Responses

Opposition & Legal Pushback

• Many Democrats and some moderates have sharply criticized the move, calling it an overreach of executive power and a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

• Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Adam Schiff reportedly plan legislation to limit future military strikes unless Congress gives explicit authorization.

• Legal scholars echo concern. Marty Lederman, writing at Just Security, calls the “armed conflict” justification legally flawed—arguing the cartels don’t meet established criteria for non-international armed conflict.

• Former officials and experts contend that the administration has not demonstrated that cartels have conducted “armed attacks” in the legal sense, and thus the rationale is weak.

• Some lawmakers view the administration’s moves as effectively waging a “secret war” without congressional consent.

Support & Justifications

• Some Republicans have expressed support, framing the cartels as national security threats that require robust responses.

• The White House has downplayed fears of a full policy shift, claiming the memo is a legal explanation rather than a new doctrine.

• White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly defended the decision, emphasizing that the president acted “in line with the law of armed conflict” and is protecting Americans.

• In media statements, some administration voices justify treating drug trafficking networks as “nonstate armed groups” with the needed sophistication, organization, and violence to warrant the classification.

🌎 Public / Regional / International Reactions

• Human rights observers and international law analysts have flagged risks of eroding due process, extrajudicial killings, and misuse of military force against criminal suspects.

• In Latin America, responses are cautious to hostile. Some governments may see U.S. strikes near their waters as violations of sovereignty or unwanted intervention.

• The Venezuelan government, already criticized by the U.S., is likely to denounce the measures as aggression. (While I did not find a direct quote yet, this is being anticipated in media coverage.)

• Among the U.S. public, the reaction is still emerging—some will view it as decisive action against drug violence, others as dangerous expansion of executive war powers.

Resulting Effects of Trump’s Cartel War Declaration:

1. Restoring American Sovereignty

By declaring drug cartels “unlawful combatants,” Trump reasserts America’s right to defend its borders with military force. For decades, cartels have acted as shadow armies, killing thousands through fentanyl, heroin, and meth flooding into U.S. communities. Instead of treating this as a law-enforcement issue alone, Trump reframes it as a national security crisis, showing Washington is no longer tolerating cartels as mere criminals.

👉 Effect: The U.S. is reclaiming control over its borders, signaling to Mexico and Latin America that American sovereignty will be defended.

2. Deterrence Against Cartels

Cartels thrive because they believe the U.S. will not escalate. This doctrine shatters that illusion. Military strikes on cartel operations—such as smuggling vessels in the Caribbean—send a message: “If you move poison into our country, we will treat you like an enemy combatant.”

👉 Effect: Fear of U.S. military retaliation may disrupt smuggling routes and weaken cartel morale, forcing them to rethink large-scale trafficking.

3. Boosting National Security & Public Safety

With fentanyl overdoses killing over 100,000 Americans annually, the administration is positioning military force as a life-saving measure. Many families see cartel violence not as a foreign issue but a domestic war zone destroying communities.

👉 Effect: A stronger sense of protection and reassurance for the American people that the federal government is finally taking the drug crisis as seriously as terrorism.

4. Political Strength & Popular Appeal

Right-leaning voters are likely to rally around this declaration. Trump is portraying himself as the first president willing to “do what it takes” to defend Americans against cartels. This contrasts with decades of softer approaches—DEA operations, border patrol crackdowns, and “partnerships” with Mexico—that have failed to stem the tide.

👉 Effect: Boosts Trump’s image as a decisive leader on law and order, potentially galvanizing his base ahead of political battles with Democrats in Congress.

5. Pressure on Mexico and Latin America

Cartels operate with influence in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. By treating them as combatants, Washington puts pressure on these governments to cooperate—or risk U.S. unilateral action.

👉 Effect: Regional governments may have to choose sides—either assist the U.S. in dismantling cartels or face American operations in their backyard. This could destabilize some diplomatic ties but force overdue accountability.

6. Military Readiness & New Precedents

Supporters argue the U.S. military is the only force strong enough to counter cartels’ paramilitary structures, which often rival small national armies. Using the armed conflict framework makes America’s response proportional to the threat.

👉 Effect: Sets a precedent for dealing with cartels as global security threats—like terrorist groups—rather than “gangsters.” This could expand future counter-narco operations worldwide.

⚠️ Aware of Risks, But Supporters Say It’s Worth It

Even among right-leaning circles, some acknowledge risks:

• International backlash from Mexico or Latin American leaders.

• Legal challenges in U.S. courts and Congress.

• Cartel retaliation against Americans abroad or at the border.

But for supporters, the calculation is simple: doing nothing has killed more Americans than any foreign war in decades.

Future Outlook : The Cartel War 

🔹 1. Stronger U.S. Borders, Weaker Cartels

Trump’s declaration sets the stage for a future where cartels no longer operate with impunity. If the U.S. military continues targeting smuggling routes, cartel leadership, and logistical hubs, the flow of fentanyl and meth could drop significantly.
👉 Outlook: Border states may see reduced trafficking, fewer overdoses, and less cartel influence in American cities.

🔹 2. Congress Will Be Forced to Choose

While critics argue about legality, this policy may force Congress to take a stand. Lawmakers who try to block it risk appearing weak on cartels and out of touch with communities devastated by drugs.
👉 Outlook: Right-leaning voices predict Congress will eventually codify some form of military authorization against cartels, expanding Trump’s mandate.

🔹 3. Diplomatic Realignment in Latin America

Mexico and regional partners will be under mounting pressure. Either they step up cooperation or watch the U.S. act unilaterally. For decades, governments have turned a blind eye to cartel corruption. That era may end.
👉 Outlook: Expect new bilateral security agreements, tougher extradition deals, and possible U.S. operations deeper into cartel territory.

🔹 4. Cartels Will Adapt — and So Will America

Cartels will likely retaliate, shifting to new smuggling methods, cyber-finance, or paramilitary tactics. But by treating them as enemy combatants, the U.S. has opened the full toolbox of military and intelligence capabilities.
👉 Outlook: Advanced drones, naval blockades, cyberwarfare, and even special operations could become routine tools in dismantling cartel networks.

🔹 5. A National Security Legacy for Trump

Right-leaning analysts see this as Trump’s version of the Reagan Doctrine against communism or the Bush Doctrine against terrorism. By declaring open conflict with cartels, Trump may be remembered as the first president to confront the narco-crisis as a war.
👉 Outlook: This doctrine could reshape U.S. foreign and domestic security policy for decades.

🔹 6. Risks Remain — But Bold Action Is Preferred

Yes, there will be international criticism, legal challenges, and potential escalation. But from a right-leaning standpoint, the cost of inaction is far higher. Fentanyl deaths outpace battlefield losses. Families are being destroyed. Doing nothing is no longer an option.
👉 Outlook: America’s enemies — from cartels to hostile states — will take note that the U.S. is finally willing to use hard power to defend its people.

 Bottom Line:

Trump’s declaration that the United States is in armed conflict with drug cartels marks a historic shift in America’s fight against narcotics. For decades, cartels have operated like shadow armies—trafficking poison into U.S. communities, corrupting governments, and destabilizing borders—while Washington treated them as mere criminal networks. That era is ending.

By classifying cartels as unlawful combatants, Trump has elevated the drug crisis to the level of a national security war. Supporters see this as long overdue: a decisive stance that puts American lives and sovereignty first. Critics may argue about legality and international law, but the undeniable fact is that fentanyl deaths, cartel violence, and border chaos have cost more lives than most foreign wars in modern history.

From a right-leaning perspective, this move restores deterrence, strengthens America’s hand abroad, and reassures families that the federal government will no longer stand idle as cartels flood streets with deadly drugs. Yes, the risks are real—diplomatic clashes, legal challenges, and potential retaliation—but the cost of doing nothing is far greater.

Bottom line: This declaration is not just a legal memo or a military strike; it’s a turning point. Trump has drawn a line in the sand: cartels are not just criminals—they are enemies of the United States. The future will judge this as either the bold doctrine that finally curbed the drug epidemic or the opening shots of a longer struggle. Either way, America has chosen to fight back.

SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT -KINETIC WAR: Trump Declares Drug Cartels Are ‘Unlawful Combatants’ and That the US Is in Armed Conflict With Them

AP NEWS – Trump says US is in ‘armed conflict’ with drug cartels after ordering strikes in the Caribbean

AL JAZEERA – Trump memo says US in ‘non-international armed conflict’ with cartels